Why Does Ray Comfort Think It’s Ok to Lie?

In his new book, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence But You Can’t Make Him Think, Ray Comfort makes the assertion:

Darwin was nothing but a blatant racist, a bigot of a man, who held to the belief that black people are inferior to whites. (p. 20)

All the evidence we have about Darwin says exactly the opposite. He went against the zeitgeist of his day by saying that slavery was an unjust and racist practice. There is much more evidence of Darwin’s progressive views in this letters. And it’s evidence Ray Comfort has the ability to get for himself. So, is Ray Comfort lying on purpose? I’m not sure. I don’t put it beyond him, but he also made that really stupid banana video. Apparently he can’t tell the difference between a cross bread cultivated banana and the handiwork of an imaginary being.

So, why does Ray think it’s ok to lie? He claims he is attempting to attack sin, but his methods are far from honest. I’ve seen this type of tactic with other proseltizing Christians as well. They will lie, cheat, and steal to get souls; it’s a dishonest method that does not make me trust them.

and now … a much better video

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: religion

Tags: , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

8 Comments on “Why Does Ray Comfort Think It’s Ok to Lie?”

  1. Tim Wilson Says:

    On behalf of all Christians everywher can I just say that we hate that Banana thing too…

    Putting Ray Comfort to one side (Christians can be wrong without Christianity being thrown out of the window), there is an underlying question here that’s worth asking:

    In an atheist worldview, humanity has got where it is by being the top dog in a dog eat dog world. Why then, if atheism is true, should we care for the planet or those weaker in society (i.e. those with disabilities)?

    I’d be interested to know what you think.

    And again…apologies for the bananas.


    • Hi Tim-
      “Survival of the Fittest” is an often misunderstood term. It was meant to give a quick over view of the theory of evolution but, as it turns out, it misrepresents it and causes confusion. It doesn’t mean best, baddest, or meanest, just most suited to the ecological niche at the time. That’s why the term “natural selection” is the more popular today.

      Another greatly misunderstood aspect of the theory is that it is an “explanation”, not a “justification”. It doesn’t justify being mean or cruel to other people (or animals for that matter). Natural Selection is meant purely to explain the adaptive process of life on the planet. It is not a moral philosophy. Atheism too, is not a moral philosophy, it is only a stance on theism. And the two are not necesariyl connected (not all atheists are evolutionists, not all evolutionists are atheists).

      I consider myself a Humanist, meaning I try to put human needs above other wants or desires. I do charity work, I give what I can, and try to be good to the other people I meet on a day to day basis.

      Hop that sums it up.
      Thanks for reading!

  2. sunnyskeptic Says:

    Hello from an atheist who has devoted her life to working with persons with disabilities! 🙂

    I say religion should be thrown out, the only benefits I see are strengthening community ties, something to do on a weekend, and strength in numbers when it comes to charity/giving back. These are all things we can do without religion.

    Oh, I hear it, what about the ‘feeling’ of being close to god. Well, I just think that if you can’t get that overwhelming, awe-filled feeling by just being alive, then you need to take a breath of that wonderful air outside and start living a little. Unless, of course, you live next to a sewage treatment plant, in that case, take your breath somewhere else and I’m sure you’ll be feelin’ it in no time!

  3. Tim Wilson Says:

    Thanks for getting back to me. Could you explain how can you be an atheist and not believe in evolution?


    • You know, I wish I could, but I can’t. Natural Selection seems like a pretty coherent explanation to me; I accept it. And I am pretty sure that a vast majority of atheists accept it, as well.

      It’s just been pointed out to me before that it’s not a forgone conclusion and not all atheists accept it.

      If I were to venture a guess, perhaps they are just not sold on it and are taking an agnostic stance?? Don’t know.
      Not all atheists are science buffs.

  4. Tim Wilson Says:

    Fair enough, just wondering.

    Where I’d have thought they’d disagree would be at a larger scale. The idea of everything having a cause is a real difficulty for atheists. If everything does have a source then:

    – What created the original elements of the big bang?
    – How did minerals change into living things?

    The traditional atheist view (before the Big Bang became largely accepted) was actually that the universe had always existed and was never created. I guess that is where they may disagree.

    How would you answer the two questions above?

    P.S. If we’re clogging up your blog feel free to email me


    • So …. explain the early formation of the universe? The very thing that the top physicists in the world are working on now? Well, not asking much, are you?

      But, to clear up common misconceptions that seem to get in people’s way:

      The Big Bang theory is not saying that the universe was created from nothing into something; That’s a religious viewpoint (creation ex nihilo). The Big Bang is a model to explain the development of the universe based on the current observational data we have available to us. The universe seems to have an expanding nature that brought it from a dense small package to a large large mostly empty package.

      If you are asking what stance I or others take on it, I think most people with a rational or scientific view point believe it’s ok to remain agnostic about the origins of the universe until we have further evidence.
      Creating a hypothesis without adequate data would be some sort of philosophy, not science, and even modern philosophers tend to steer away from that. It’s just plain sloppy.

      But, I don’t’ believe the universe came from a god’s breath (or “a mighty wind” – depending on your translation). I would rank that as quite low on the scale of probabilities.

      Life from non-life (abiogenesis)
      Natural selection, of course, doesn’t apply here. There are folks working on it. I think the Miller – Urey experiments were pretty promising, and there’s been quite a bit of renewed interest in them. I hope they pan out, but if they don’t it’s not going to keep me awake at night. The wikipedia page on abiogenesis outlines some of the current abiogenesis models pretty well.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life


  5. […] Why does Ray Comfort think it’s OK to Lie?, The Universal Heretic (Highly Recommend its God of the Week Category.) […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: